So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today

AshburnerX

AshburnerX

What they should do now is go to the school, tell them they are willing to sit down with the school and decide which salaries are too high, which services are unnecessary, and chop the budget down so they can reduce tuition and meet their goals. If the school doesn't meet with them or doesn't enact the changes the students propose then the students merely need to say that they have another group of protesters who are willing and able to be recorded and broadcast while the police remove them again.
Click to expand...
See, this is what USED to happen during these campus protests before OWS became a thing.

- College kids would protest
- The administration would send a delegate out to meet with them
- Most kids would leave, feeling that they have been heard.
- Anyone who stayed after the meeting would then be told they'd be expelled if they continued or they cops would get the stragglers.
- Changes would happen or another protest would happen.

The problem here is that the people in charge aren't bothering to hear their concerns OR do anything about them... they just call the cops so they don't have to deal with it, because they don't want to do anything with tuition concerns. They feel the tuition changes are justified because it allows them to build new facilities and hire new talent in an attempt to make the school more prestigious. There's a sort of "arms race" going on between colleges, now that kids have more choices in colleges. This has lead to massive tuition increases.

So really, the issue at hand is that there is a breakdown in the process and student protestors don't have any other option except cause as much of a scene as they can.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

stienman said:
To answer your explicit question, I don't feel that a govt which is unable or unwilling to enforce the law is worth supporting. As I discussed much earlier in this thread, a government that can pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore is corrupt. The government has the ability to choose options within a very narrow range that is set by law.

Add all of that together, and it does appear that what I'm saying will bother you on a fundamental level, assuming I understand your post correctly. It appears to me that you're saying that the govt should ignore the law for some people or groups some of the time.
Click to expand...
A government should not pick and choose which laws they enforce. But as wielders of power, they have every ability to determine how they go about enforcing it. Again, just so we're clear, I'm arguing with your broad declarative statement, not your views on the specific incident, since as armchair observers, we simply don't have enough information at this time.

I'm saying that suggesting that the government/police have no power to choose how they enforce the law, and that all the responsibility of agency lies with people who do not have that level of power, is grotesque.

And then to take it a step further and suggest, as you did, that I should feel bad for the government for taking the burden of their power? Honestly, you've got to be kidding me. The government and police have, among many other powers, the ability to arrest and/or detain any citizen under reasonable suspicion at any time. That power should be a burden. If they can't deal with that, that seems a pretty good indicator that they shouldn't be there in that position of power in the first place.

I've seen more than a few folks in this thread suggest that the protesters made an informed choice and should be satisfied with it. Well, on a general level, so has the government in the way they deal with their citizenry, and so have the people who choose to become civil servants or law enforcement. You can't have it both ways; either everyone is responsible for their choices, or no one is.

You should understand that I'm an engineer, working with deterministic machines. I figure out the rules, I figure out the consequences for disobeying the rules, and when I solve a problem I take that all into account. If I choose to break a rule, which is sometimes an acceptable choice depending on the project, I simultaneously choose to accept the consequence.
Click to expand...
So if I follow your logic, I should either be feeling bad for you as a deterministic representative of the government, or I should be damning you for breaking the rules. Either way, I should be ignoring what you were trying to do and the problem you were trying to solve.
 
strawman

strawman

I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes to one another. I'm not sure I can explain my position more plainly, but it seems that either you're getting something that is substantially different than what I'm trying to say or I'm not fully comprehending what you're saying.

Perhaps I'll come back and review this all later to see if I can better understand your points, and figure out where I can clarify.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

stienman said:
I think you and I are talking at cross-purposes to one another. I'm not sure I can explain my position more plainly, but it seems that either you're getting something that is substantially different than what I'm trying to say or I'm not fully comprehending what you're saying.

Perhaps I'll come back and review this all later to see if I can better understand your points, and figure out where I can clarify.
Click to expand...
You and I do seem to do that a lot, so I fully grant that this could be the case here.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure that's what happens with most of the folks in the political forum.

Except GB and Charlie, who are trolling.

And only one of them is funny.
...
...
...
...it's not Charlie.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

I'll say this much... even if that guy doesn't lose his job, he will be the laughing stock the department once one of his buddies sees these.
 
Officer_Charon

Officer_Charon

Ash: I want to thank you for that articulate and well-explained response on how this process was SUPPOSED to happen. I'm not defending the actions of the SCHOOL, I'm defending the actions of the OFFICERS who were, in this case, I believe justified in the measure that they took.

I agree that police are far too often deployed as someone's goon squad - and as these officers work for the University of California, they were sent out by the Chief of Police, acting under direction of the equivalent of the Mayor.

When we enter into a situation, we don't know what's gone on before we get there.... all we're told is "X is happening, and it's a violation of the law. Make it stop."

Biannoshufu said:
So your essentially saying it was an appropriate use of force to have one man pepper spray kids like a gardener waters azelias in response to a perceived threat of violence by the crowd of two hundred, even though the cops knew before hand this would rile students up more?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that any action they took with the chain-linkers - ANY action - was going to result in the crowd getting upset with them. They were already screaming and crying "Shame!" when they were picking up folks BEFORE they linked up. They chose the method that would result in the least possibility of officer injury, while providing the maximum amount of support.

I reiterate: it was a SINGLE officer with ONE can of spray, vice a firing line of officers deploying OC, CS and/or pepperballs.

Actually, come to think of it, a CS grenade or two might not have been a bad alternative as an area denial, so long as it was announced first to allow the sycophants and hangers-on the chance to decide for themselves if they really wanted to take that leap of faith.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
If you believe that the school had a right to say "Hey, no camping on school grounds", and had a right to remove the campers, then the question is how much and what kind of force should you use?

Physically grabbing and restraining people to forcibly remove them is very dangerous for both parties. I have done this before and it can turn bad very very quickly. Pepper guns, as mentioned before, can cause injury. Exactly what other method would you have liked? Yes, it looks pretty bad, but if they were warned? Well, they knew what was coming. And they should be happy it wasn't CS gas.

However, none of that really matters, because the OWS people have made a couple things pretty clear recently:

They have no specific goal, and no plan to actualize any of the various and probably not consensually agreed upon goals that they do have. If they had enough foresight to do this they could easily have gotten to the point they are at now and said "Ok, we're going home, but you haven't seen the last of us. We will become a voting bloc that the dems now need to respect." They had name, power, recognition, and they failed to use any of it.

All they know how to do is get attention, not how to leverage that attention. This is why they are so desperate to maintain the camps. Without the camps they have nothing, and like a man pushing down a spring they only have an effect as long as they apply pressure.

This MASSIVE failure says to me that their movement is not one that deserves the right to even be called a movement. For the outside eyes, those of us on the fence, we see this and think "these are not people who should have the ability to make decisions, because even when given the full freedom in describing their own agenda they fail." Now we no longer respect them as a movement, and more and more we just see them as spoiled children crying "not fair!" and asking to be treated like adults when they refuse to act like them.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Nec, I think you summed it up pretty well. Chaz mentioned Martin Luther King and Gandhi earlier--there is no such leader for this movement. Not one.
 
strawman

strawman

Quotemander Prime said:
Nec, I think you summed it up pretty well. Chaz mentioned Martin Luther King and Gandhi earlier--there is no such leader for this movement. Not one.
Click to expand...
tl;dr (you're welcome): Two months after the civil rights movement could said to have started, and two months after the movement in india started, neither ghandi nor MLK were leaders, as I understand things. Further, this waffling on issues may actually work out for them in the long run.

----------

I seem to recall that those leaders emerged from civil unrest, and led it. They didn't become prominent within the first two months of hard protesting did they? India is a whole 'nother ball of wax anyway with both violent and non-violent protest.

But didn't MLK emerge only after the protests and riots started, and didn't it take a looooong time (more than a month or two) for people to rally behind him after he started his more-public crusade?

I guess what I'm getting at is that two months is really too short for us to expect a leader to emerge that can truly lead the movement, and the protests themselves may be the impetus the future leader needs in order to decide to give everything up and push things forward.

Two months is a long time in internet time, but in the real world it's a blip. If the protests were to die down now, it would barely be remembered in a few years. OWS is going to have to demonstrate staying power to have any impact - even with no set agenda.

And the protesters, as frustrating as it is, aren't wrong in saying, "We're not happy. We have many things we aren't happy about, but we're not going to settle on one or two things right now - for now we're just doing PR work." If things work out, they'll adopt a leader who will help them prioritize in due time. To some degree this approach hurts them - people aren't sure what they want, and therefore they can't be heard and placated. On the other hand, though, they are gaining a lot of followers based on their open doors - "There's room for your complaints against the corporate/government machine" and if they can gain enough followers, get them committed to the cause, then solidify them on a few points - the spearhead, so to speak - of their demands, they may end up with a much larger following than if they chose those primary points early, then hoped everyone still joined them.

Not that any of this is a certainty, but it's one possible outcome that doesn't seem to be a stretch of the imagination.
 
strawman

strawman

Tonight is the last night for the Occupy Detroit camp in Grand Circus Park, with their official permit expiring at midnight.

Since Oct. 14, protesters have camped out with about 50 tents in the western half of the downtown Detroit park. They set up a kitchen, supply tent, and a medical facility, but that has now all been taken down. Unlike other cities across the U.S., the Occupy protesters in Detroit have had good relations with city police, who have not arrested anyone. The protesters plan to clean up the park tonight.

Occupy Detroit was an echo of the Occupy Wall Street protests that started in New York City against the growing concentration of wealth in the U.S. Income inequality is at its highest in the U.S. since at least 1967. The Occupy movement was similar to protests earlier this year in Spain by youth upset over high unemployment.

Leaders with Occupy Detroit say they plan to continue their movement, but in a building in Detroit.
Click to expand...
(source)
 
Krisken

Krisken

It's Detroit. It's impossible for the people in the park to be more difficult than the rest of the city.

Seriously, it makes sense there would be good relations between them. There is an expiration date on their public exposure. If the problem is going to basically go away, why use force?
 
B

Biannoshufu

Officer_Charon said:
Ash: I want to thank you for that articulate and well-explained response on how this process was SUPPOSED to happen. I'm not defending the actions of the SCHOOL, I'm defending the actions of the OFFICERS who were, in this case, I believe justified in the measure that they took.

I agree that police are far too often deployed as someone's goon squad - and as these officers work for the University of California, they were sent out by the Chief of Police, acting under direction of the equivalent of the Mayor.

When we enter into a situation, we don't know what's gone on before we get there.... all we're told is "X is happening, and it's a violation of the law. Make it stop."



I'm saying that any action they took with the chain-linkers - ANY action - was going to result in the crowd getting upset with them. They were already screaming and crying "Shame!" when they were picking up folks BEFORE they linked up. They chose the method that would result in the least possibility of officer injury, while providing the maximum amount of support.

I reiterate: it was a SINGLE officer with ONE can of spray, vice a firing line of officers deploying OC, CS and/or pepperballs.

Actually, come to think of it, a CS grenade or two might not have been a bad alternative as an area denial, so long as it was announced first to allow the sycophants and hangers-on the chance to decide for themselves if they really wanted to take that leap of faith.
Click to expand...
I have to admit it doesnt exactly make sense to me, but I'd trust your experience over these matters rather than the armchair squad's. Thanks.
 
Krisken

Krisken

The problem with 'non-lethal' methods is they get used more often because they are 'non-lethal'. They are not there to be used in place of lethal methods in these cases. Would these protesters have been shot with live ammo in the absence of pepper spray and rubber bullets?

I want to say though that while I don't necessarily blame the officer who did the spraying (though he makes a funny meme image set), I do blame the people in charge who gave the ok for using the pepper spray. "Following orders" is a terrible (read- inexcusable) excuse, but I can at least understand it. Not everyone is strong willed enough to have morality and conviction to follow it.
 
Mathias

Mathias

Quotemander Prime said:
Nec, I think you summed it up pretty well. Chaz mentioned Martin Luther King and Gandhi earlier--there is no such leader for this movement. Not one.
Click to expand...

Would you please stop calling me Chaz. I don't even care what that name entails anymore. It's just annoying because new members probably have no clue who you're referring to, which leads me to believe the only reason you're using it is to get my goat.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Mathias said:
Would you please stop calling me Chaz. I don't even care what that name entails anymore. It's just annoying because new members probably have no clue who you're referring to, which leads me to believe the only reason you're using it is to get my goat.
Click to expand...
I think people do it because they have years of experience with the name. It's why i would still call Amy Amy instead of whatever her new name is (bianogshalkjh;aldskfjh;aldskhj)
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
That, and "Chaz" just sounds so much cooler. It sounds like the guy who knows where the party's at. Way better than "Math." That sounds like homework.
 
strawman

strawman

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1122-occupy-la-move-20111122,0,1592348.story

Los Angeles officials have offered Occupy L.A. protesters a package of incentives that includes downtown office space and farmland in an attempt to persuade them to abandon their camp outside of City Hall

...

Los Angeles has been one of the most accommodating cities in the nation for its Occupy encampment.

Officials here said they do not want the demonstration to end violently and have steered away from police raids like those in New York, Oakland and other cities.

It is unclear whether the protesters will give up their camp.

The proposals were received with a mix of excitement, anger and disbelief among protesters, many of whom did not know that members of the camp were in negotiations with city officials.

"I don't appreciate people appointing themselves to represent me, to represent us," one woman called out during the assembly. "Who was in those meetings?"

...

Lafferty, who said he talks regularly to Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck, said police "have said that the day is growing near when they will not allow the occupation in its present form to continue."
Click to expand...
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
They don't even have the wherewithall to have someone ready to talk to the police. This isn't rocket science. We have people assigned for that for something as small as a party.
 
Adam

Adam

The issue is that 1% of the 99% are now representing the 99% - and the hippie dippies don't like that. It's a no win situation. They want everyone to have the exact same benefits, but curiously few are willing to do the work. I'm very impressed with LA's method to dealing with them, even if it underscores the fact that the 'movement' should be flushed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top